Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26700281›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

An algorithm to identify rheumatoid arthritis in primary care: a Clinical Practice Research Datalink study.

Sara Muller, Samantha L Hider, Karim Raza, Rebecca J Stack, Richard A Hayward, Christian D Mallen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Patterns and trends in eczema management in UK primary care (2009-2018): A population-based cohort study.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sara MullerArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Samantha L HiderArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Karim RazaCentre for Translational Inflammation Research, School of Immunity and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Department of Rheumatology, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Rebecca J StackCentre for Translational Inflammation Research, School of Immunity and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Richard A HaywardArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Christian D MallenArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP_2014-04-026Department of Health WMCLAHRC-2014-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a multisystem, inflammatory disorder associated with increased levels of morbidity and mortality. While much research into the condition is conducted in the secondary care setting, routinely collected primary care databases provide an important source of research data. This study aimed to update an algorithm to define RA that was previously developed and validated in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD).

methodsThe original algorithm consisted of two criteria. Individuals meeting at least one were considered to have RA. Criterion 1: ≥ 1 RA Read code and a disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) without an alternative indication. Criterion 2: ≥ 2 RA Read codes, with at least one 'strong' code and no alternative diagnoses. Lists of codes for consultations and prescriptions were obtained from the authors of the original algorithm where these were available, or compiled based on the original description and clinical knowledge. 4161 people with a first Read code for RA between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2012 were selected from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD, successor to the GPRD), and the criteria applied.

resultsCode lists were updated for the introduction of new Read codes and biological DMARDs. 3577/4161 (86%) of people met the updated algorithm for RA, compared to 61% in the original development study. 62.8% of people fulfilled both Criterion 1 and Criterion 2.

conclusionsThose wishing to define RA in the CPRD, should consider using this updated algorithm, rather than a single RA code, if they wish to identify only those who are most likely to have RA.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsClinical CodingDatabases, FactualPrimary Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultAntirheumatic AgentsEPIDEMIOLOGYPRIMARY CARERHEUMATOLOGY

Identifiers

PMID26700281
PMCPMC4691776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.